How State Taxes Impact Winning for Professional Teams , Especially In Minnesota

To test my theory, I gathered data on the outcomes of every professional sports game over the past 40 years as well as data on state and local tax rates each team member faces. I then computed how much taxes predict winning for each league in every year while controlling for other factors such as population, income, franchise age and local amenities (i.e., weather).

Results of the analysis show that higher taxes consistently predict worse performance in every league — not just the N.B.A. but also Major League Baseball, the N.H.L., and the N.F.L. over the past 20 years. The findings do not change if I use championships or finals appearances instead of regular season wins, and no single city, team or year drives the results.

It’s in the N.B.A. that I find the largest effect. If Minnesota eliminated its income tax, the Timberwolves might win two to five more games each year. This may not sound like much, but the price for victories is quite high. Last summer the Washington Wizards signed Bradley Beal to a five-year, $128 million contract, and if things go well, they should expect him to contribute two to five wins per season. I find a much smaller effect in M.L.B., which has no salary cap, where a similar income tax change for the Twins would result in winning only about one more game each season.

These results should provide some good news for other long-suffering fans in Buffalo, Sacramento, Oakland, Washington, or all of Canada. It’s not your fault (entirely). Your teams have essentially been playing with ankle weights against teams from Florida, Texas, and Washington State. I am also sure that if you ask Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban under oath, they would admit some of the Cowboys’ and Mavericks’ continued success is because their players pay no state income taxes.

Several other factors connect the income tax effect to my theory. Comparing player salary to player value measures provides evidence that higher-taxed teams in baseball and basketball pay more for players of similar quality, suggesting tax compensation is real. The income tax effect also relies on the assumption that players and teams are responding to income tax rates when negotiating contracts. This explains why the effect arises only in the wake of collective bargaining agreements in the late 1980s and early 1990s that allowed players to become unrestricted free agents and have teams compete to sign them.

The income tax effect could also be explained if people in low-tax states such as Texas and Florida just enjoy sports more and support their teams more and this translates to more winning. But I found that in college football and basketball, where athletes are not paid and should not care about income tax rates, teams from lower-tax states do not perform better than teams in higher-tax states.

The gut reaction of die-hard sports fans to hearing that their team is worse off because of income taxes would be justification enough to eliminate income taxes all together. Heck, we might even push for income subsidies instead if it might bring a championship to Minnesota.

But the real solution lies within the salary cap rules intended to level the playing field in the first place. Why not attack the imbalance at the source? Adjusting the salary cap or luxury tax using expected post-tax instead of pre-tax dollars eliminates this competitive advantage.

Do that, and I can return to just blaming the cold weather as the reason the Timberwolves are staying home during the yet another N.B.A. playoffs season.

The Story of Trump’s Taxes, or What Hillary Doesn’t Know or Understand

When a business loses money, it doesn’t pay taxes. When a lot of money is lost, the losses can be deducted for years with limits, until they are used up.  The principle here is to encourage investment and job creation by softening the fall if it doesn’ t work. That’s why we have laws on bankruptcy that, again, encourage investment and job creation. 
Donald Trump has invested and lost from time to time. He gets to recognize those losses, it’s what we encourage. 
Hillary has done none of this. She and husband, Bill, have made hundreds of millions of dollars by selling influence through their Clinton Foundation. For example, if you are a Russian company who want to acquire the US supply of uranium, you send $500,000  to the Clinton foundation, get a fifteen-minute speech from BIll,  and Hillary, as secretary of state, approves the transfer. Yes, this happened.(http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/22/book-hillary-gave-russian-govt-half-of-u-s-uranium-output-to-reward-donors-company/)
Trump’s businesses and ten thousand employees all pay taxes to local, state and federal governments. Hillary’s claim that was not the case was just a big lie, or, and this is more alarming, a statement made through ignorance. In her world, the income into the Foundation, hundreds of millions of dollars, is tax-free under IRC 501c3.  this tax-free money then pays Clinton family expenses, chartered jets, hotel suites, office rental and living expenses like clothes, food and “what ever else you want.” She is not paying her fair share, not Trump. This fact will come out soon and may just start here.  
Read on.

Trump, Taxes and the Times

See also: New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes

The New York Times put out a hit piece on Donald Trump saying that he took a $900 billion-plus business loss in 1995 that allowed him to pay no income taxes for years. If it was a legitimate loss that is what he is supposed to do. Trump and his businesses pay property taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, motor fuel taxes and all the other taxes and fees the government entities charge. Therefore, it is either pure ignorance or intentional lies for Hillary and others to say he pays no taxes to support schools, the police, the roads and all other government functions. Why doesn’t the media fact check that lie instead of repeating it?

Amazon, which is led Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, lost $1.41 Billion in 2000 and that offset their minimal income for years. Would Hillary and the NYT say Bezos paid no taxes and did not support government activities?

Solar City and Tesla, which are owned by one of the heroes of the left Elon Musk, have never made a profit and therefore never paid income taxes and they are also heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Where are the media stories ripping Musk for not supporting the government?

If anyone wants to look at pure abuse of the income tax system they should look at what President Obama did for GM in 2009. We not only bailed out GM to the tune of $50 Billion, Obama gave GM an exemption from income taxes on their next $45 billion of income for up to twenty years. Why doesn’t Hillary bring that one up as she campaigns in states with auto facilities?

The New York Times has had some financially troublesome years. Do they voluntarily pay income taxes when they lose money or do they carry back and carry forward the losses? That is all Trump did and it is pathetic that the Times would do a hit piece on what is and what should be a legal practice.

Can the New York Times find any company or individual that had a loss thatdidn’t use the loss to offset income taxes for years? What about Buffet when he was a major shareholder of US Air?  I bet they can’t find any.